The NFL report would dwarf this one. And I’m not opposed to the concept but I imagine a greater percentage of the population would be.
At least that’s what I’m extrapolating from the lack of outrage over NFL steroid suspensions (specifically Merriman last year and Harrison this year.)
There are varying degrees of :proof" in the report. Roberts case is weak hearsay. Many are stronger ,yet true proof is missing. We know it was more widespread than this report. if it is the best they can do ,I am dissatisfied. HGH requires a blood test. The players union must fight it. The interests of the sport will not be considered.
I’m surprised, and a little bit disappointed, that Sammy Sosa isn’t in it, except for one brief mention that he declined to be interviewed. I don’t like Sammy Sosa.
with that many players doping, why don’t they just make it legal?
:eek:
We should extend an official invitation to all the named players to come here so they can be called “Dopers” without the stigma.
[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
I’m surprised, and a little bit disappointed, that Sammy Sosa isn’t in it, except for one brief mention that he declined to be interviewed. I don’t like Sammy Sosa.
[/quote]
I’m sure everybody’s heard this story, but I’ll repeat it anyway: Sammy was loudly proclaiming how clean he was, and said that when testing was required he’d be the first in line. SI’s Rick Reilly asked him ‘why wait? Let’s go now’, and Sammy went absolutely bat-shit ballistic. So I think he’s on the “dirty” list, regardless of the Mitchell Report.
That’d be tough, since it would require legalizing the non-authorized use of prescription medication. And it would mean that players who didn’t want to abuse their bodies (potentially lethally) would be at a disadvantage against those who were willing to take that chance.
Doesn’t the NFL have a more rigorous testing policy already in place? I was somewhat under the impression that they’re relatively cleaner than MLB.
A lot of the players mentioned played for several teams. They were just trying to hang on to get the pension and make money while they could. I find it hard to fault them. Especially when they competed with enhanced players for spots.
Biggest surprise for me: No Ken Caminiti on the list. He admitted to it, I wonder if they omitted him for political reasons cuz he’s dead and all.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
A lot of the players mentioned played for several teams. They were just trying to hang on to get the pension and make money while they could. I find it hard to fault them. Especially when they competed with enhanced players for spots.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry but that doesn’t cut it for me. It’s still cheating and just because their ego couldn’t handle the fact that their career was over doesn’t make one difference.
You made millions of dollars during your career and you disgraced it by trying to pull in another million.
I thought there was an earthquake earlier, but I guess that was actually everyone falling off their high horses. Careful getting down, folks!
[QUOTE=HoboStew]
Biggest surprise for me: No Ken Caminiti on the list. He admitted to it, I wonder if they omitted him for political reasons cuz he’s dead and all.
[/QUOTE]
They mentioned him numerous times in the report. They didn’t document how he got his drugs, as they did with other, living players, but Mitchell did write:
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
with that many players doping, why don’t they just make it legal?
:eek:
[/QUOTE]
What we need is two leagues- not the AL and NL, but the Steroid League and the Non-Steroid League.
[QUOTE=mobo85]
What we need is two leagues- not the AL and NL, but the Steroid League and the Non-Steroid League.
[/QUOTE]
I wasn’t really serious, but after I thought about it maybe they should just allow players use steroids. Unfair advantage? So is having lasix surgery as a golfer or using special golf balls/clubs for an advantage. Just saying…
Or let it go since MLB turned a blind eye to this problem for so long. Now all of a sudden they’re pointing the finger?
Too little too late.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
Unfair advantage? So is having lasix surgery as a golfer or using special golf balls/clubs for an advantage. Just saying.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t see how either of those, especially better equipment (within the rules) counts as an “unfair advantage.” An advantage, yes, but how is it unfair?
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
I wasn’t really serious, but after I thought about it maybe they should just allow players use steroids. Unfair advantage? So is having lasix surgery as a golfer or using special golf balls/clubs for an advantage. Just saying…
Or let it go since MLB turned a blind eye to this problem for so long. Now all of a sudden they’re pointing the finger?
Too little too late.
[/QUOTE]
But lasik surgery and the newest golf clubs aren’t illegal. Steroids are. Baseball can not and should not turn a blind eye to illegal activity, nevermind the impact that it is having on the game.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I don’t see how either of those, especially better equipment (within the rules) counts as an “unfair advantage.” An advantage, yes, but how is it unfair?
[/QUOTE]
well, if all the golfers competing aren’t using the same better equipment, it could be argued… Just saying.
[QUOTE=Kid_A]
But lasik surgery and the newest golf clubs aren’t illegal. Steroids are. Baseball can not and should not turn a blind eye to illegal activity, nevermind the impact that it is having on the game.
[/QUOTE]
yeah, that’s the difference. Steriods are illegal. And the athlete is only hurting himself in the longrun as a result.
The thing is, Baseball can’t and shouldn’t turn a blind eye to steroid use, but they have for years now…
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
well, if all the golfers competing aren’t using the same better equipment, it could be argued… Just saying.
[/QUOTE]
I think a better argument would be that some athletes are just stronger than others. I mean, how is THAT fair? Everybody’s always looking for an advantage and there isn’t anything wrong with that. The issue is whether it’s an unfair advantage. When the advantage comes from something illegal, I think you can reasonably argue it’s unfair. When the equipment is all available legally and the only difference might be price, I don’t think that’s unfair. How would it be fair to make everybody use the same equipment?
As you’ve said twice, yes, baseball turned a blind eye to steroid use for years. So? That doesn’t require them to keep doing it.
[QUOTE=jsc1953]
I’m sure everybody’s heard this story, but I’ll repeat it anyway: Sammy was loudly proclaiming how clean he was, and said that when testing was required he’d be the first in line. SI’s Rick Reilly asked him ‘why wait? Let’s go now’, and Sammy went absolutely bat-shit ballistic. So I think he’s on the “dirty” list, regardless of the Mitchell Report.
[/QUOTE]
The Reilly thing was clearly an ambush, and obviously Sosa was unprepared for the stunt. He knew it would completely alienate him within the union if he went along with the test request, so he backed down when Reilly called his bluff. Yeah, Sosa comes off looking like a jerk who shot his mouth off, but I don’t think it implicates him as a user.
I’ve never met a ballplayer more image-conscious than Sammy Sosa. This is the guy who made it a point to have cameras on hand for the ten seconds he spent loading trucks for hurricane relief to the Dominican Republic in 1998 (translation: He can put aside the HR race to help his countrymen; what a guy). Several Chicago-area reporters can confirm he speaks perfect English, but will sometimes put on the “Baseball been berry berry good” act (like when he testified before Congress) if it suits his purposes.
There is also the matter of his being caught using a corked bat in a 2003 game against the D-Rays, an admittedly foolish way to cheat, but cheating nonetheless. Don’t get me wrong, Sosa is not Cal Ripken by any stretch of the imagination.
But even after adding all this up, it’s not enough in my mind to justify accusations that he used steroids. The best we’ve gotten on that is guilt by association with Mark McGwire, and of course Canseco’s say-so that “it’s obvious” (Canseco said he personally injected McGwire with steroids, but in Sosa’s case he’s basically going by what he’s seen on TV).
And now the Mitchell report fails to name Sosa; that’s not an exoneration, but considering Clemens was in basically the same “suspected but unproven” boat before the report came out, if the evidence were there Sosa would be on the list. And before you claim the list is thin on Dominicans, Miguel Tejada was also named, the guy who vehemently denied any association with steroids when he was first accused in 2005. ISTR a lot of people believed him at the time, and thought Palmeiro was clutching at straws to save his own skin (to mix a couple metaphors 
).
Some people will obviously never believe Sosa might be innocent in this mess, but right now a lot of evidence is on his side. Folks who accuse him now are putting him in a position of having to prove a negative, and we all know how fair that standard can be.
[QUOTE=CJJ*]
Some people will obviously never believe Sosa might be innocent in this mess, but right now a lot of evidence is on his side.
[/QUOTE]
What evidence is on his side? A lack of positive test results? He bulked up as much as anyone this side of Bonds.
You’re right, there isn’t anything that will convince me Sosa didn’t juice. But I also don’t see anything that makes it a realistic possibility. The Mitchell report named about 30 active players, and if the real total has to be several times that. The omission of Sosa or any other particular player only reflects the sources Mitchell was able to get information from and really shouldn’t be taken as proof that anybody else is clean.